Workplace violence, ranging from verbal harassment to physical assaults, represents a serious occupational hazard in many industries. In response, researchers have increasingly focused on the concept of workplace violence prevention climate, which refers to employees’ shared perceptions of their organisation’s policies, practices, and commitment to preventing violence (Spector et al., 2007). This construct is modelled after safety climate (commonly used in accident prevention) but is specific to aggression and violence. A strong violence prevention climate means workers believe management prioritises their safety, enforces anti-violence policies, and encourages reporting and intervening in aggressive incidents. A weak climate, by contrast, exists where employees feel that violence is “just part of the job” or that management turns a blind eye to threats. Understanding this climate is crucial because studies consistently link it to actual workplace violence rates and to employee well-being (Kessler et al., 2008; Spector et al., 2015). This essay summarises key findings from recent academic research on violence prevention climate, highlighting methodologies, results, and implications, and discusses new trends in the literature. The conclusion offers practical recommendations for organisations aiming to foster a safer work environment.

Violence Prevention Climate and Workplace Violence

Across numerous studies, a clear pattern has emerged: workplaces with a positive violence prevention climate experience significantly less violence and aggression. For example, Spector et al. (2007) surveyed hospital nurses about their “perceived violence climate” and their personal exposure to aggression. Nurses who reported a better violence prevention climate (e.g., they felt management was concerned about violence and had good preventive policies) also reported far fewer incidents of physical violence and verbal abuse from patients and visitors. Similarly, Kessler et al. (2008) developed a Violence Climate Survey (VCS) and tested it on employees from various occupations. They found that when organisations had strong anti-violence policies, consistent safety practices, and no undue pressure to ignore risks, employees experienced less frequent aggression, whereas poor scores on any of those dimensions were associated with more frequent workplace aggression (Kessler et al., 2008). Notably, this research revealed that different climate weaknesses had specific effects: workplaces lacking clear policies and placing high pressure on workers (to “get the job done” even at personal risk) saw more verbal harassment, whereas workplaces that failed to implement safety practices saw more physical assaults (Kessler et al., 2008). This suggests that curbing verbal abuse may require clear rules and relieving contradictory pressures, while preventing physical violence additionally requires effective on-the-ground safety measures (such as adequate staffing and security protocols). International research reinforces this pattern: in a study of ten hospitals in Costa Rica, staff who perceived a low safety climate had several-fold higher odds of being verbally abused by both their supervisors and their patients (Gimeno et al., 2012). The consistent conclusion is that workplace violence is not random or inevitable – it is strongly shaped by the organisational climate. When workers feel protected by robust measures, violence is less likely; when they feel unprotected, aggression becomes more prevalent.

Causal Direction and Employee Outcomes

A critical question is whether a positive climate actually prevents workplace violence, or if low-violence workplaces simply encourage a better climate. Recent longitudinal research indicates the former. Spector, Yang, and Zhou (2015) tracked newly graduated nurses over six months to examine cause-and-effect. They found that nurses who initially reported a strong violence prevention climate were significantly less likely to experience assaults or threats in the ensuing months, even after accounting for earlier incidents (Spector et al., 2015). Equally important, nurses who did suffer violence did not subsequently change their overall perception of the climate (Spector et al., 2015). This suggests that violence prevention climate is an antecedent condition that drives incident rates, rather than merely an after-the-fact impression. In practical terms, improving the climate now can lead to fewer injuries later, and a single incident of violence does not automatically sour the entire climate unless broader practices are lacking.

Beyond incident rates, the violence prevention climate has far-reaching implications for employee wellbeing. Work environments rife with aggression can cause high stress, burnout, physical health symptoms, and turnover, whereas a positive climate can mitigate these issues. For example, Spector et al. (2007) noted that a better climate was associated with lower psychological strain among nurses, even independent of actual violence exposure. More recently, Viotti et al. (2019) examined Italian hospital nurses and found that a good prevention climate led to fewer internal conflicts (e.g., between colleagues), which in turn correlated with lower emotional exhaustion and a reduced desire to leave the job. In their model, a supportive climate reduced both internal and external violence, thereby lessening burnout and strengthening retention (Viotti et al., 2019). Conversely, a weak climate that tolerates abuse contributes to staff burnout and makes people more likely to quit, exacerbating staffing shortages and costs for the employer.

Research has also linked positive violence prevention climates to higher job satisfaction and morale. When employees feel safe and supported, they tend to be more content and engaged at work. In contrast, working under constant threat or fear undermines job satisfaction (Kessler et al., 2008). A particularly interesting finding comes from Yeşildağ et al. (2024), who surveyed healthcare workers about workplace happiness. They reported that staff who perceived a strong violence prevention climate were significantly happier in their jobs, whereas those who had experienced violence or felt unsafe were far less happy (Yeşildağ et al., 2024). This suggests that ensuring staff safety is not just about avoiding negative outcomes; it actively contributes to positive ones, enabling employees to thrive and find fulfilment in their work.

Key Drivers of a Positive Climate

What elements contribute to a strong violence prevention climate? Research points to several factors, with leadership behaviour being paramount. Management commitment consistently emerges as a crucial predictor of climate (Lipscomb et al., 2012; Kessler et al., 2008). When leaders demonstrate genuine concern for employee safety through actions like enforcing anti-violence rules, allocating resources for security and training, and backing up staff who report incidents—employees internalise that priority. In Lipscomb et al.’s (2012) study of addiction treatment centres, the perception of low management commitment was the strongest predictor of higher violence risk for staff. Workers who felt that their managers “hardly ever” acted to prevent violence had about four times the odds of being assaulted or threatened compared to those who felt management was consistently committed (Lipscomb et al., 2012). By contrast, in facilities where leaders actively supported safety measures (for example, promptly removing or disciplining clients who showed violence, and visibly supporting staff who raised concerns), violent incidents were much less frequent.

Formal policies and training are another vital component. Organisations that implement comprehensive violence prevention programmes tend to cultivate better climates. These programmes typically include written zero-tolerance policies (clearly forbidding any form of workplace violence or abuse), procedures for reporting and responding to incidents, and regular training for staff on de-escalation and self-protection techniques. The existence of policies alone is not enough. Employees must also see them enforced. When anti-violence policies exist on paper and are actually followed in practice, workers gain trust that the safety climate is real (Chang et al., 2012; Kessler et al., 2008). For example, Chang et al. (2012) found that in workplaces with clear rules and consistent managerial follow-up on incidents, employees were more likely to engage in proactive prevention behaviours themselves (such as being vigilant and reporting early signs of aggression), because they felt supported and less cynical.

At the same time, organisations must eliminate pressures that undermine safety. Even with good policies, a climate can falter if employees feel pressured to prioritise productivity or customer service at the expense of safety. Kessler et al. (2008) captured this dynamic in their “Pressure for Unsafe Practices” dimension. Workplaces where staff sensed that taking time for safety might be viewed negatively, or that they should “put up with” difficult customers to avoid losing business, tended to have more incidents of verbal aggression. To strengthen the climate, companies should explicitly encourage reporting and intervention, even if it means pausing work—essentially telling employees that “your safety comes first, even if it inconveniences someone”. This can involve adjusting performance metrics (so that, for instance, call centre workers are not penalised for hanging up on an abusive caller) and ensuring adequate staffing (so employees don’t face violence because of being alone or overworked).

In summary, leadership sets the tone, and consistent implementation backs it up. The evidence indicates that a workplace with engaged, safety-conscious management, clear and enforced anti-violence policies, and a culture that truly prioritises staff well-being will develop a strong violence prevention climate. By contrast, if higher management is disengaged or primarily focused on other goals, even the best-written policy will have little effect, because employees will (rightly) perceive that “nobody upstairs really cares.”

New Trends and Research Directions

Over the past decade, researchers have refined and expanded the study of violence prevention climate. One development is improved measurement tools. Hallett et al. (2018) introduced the Violence Prevention Climate scale (VPC-14), a 14-item survey designed for mental health settings. It captures staff and patient perceptions of safety efforts in two areas:

1. staff action (e.g., how consistently staff enforce rules and defuse conflicts); and
2. patient action (e.g., how patients cooperate with or respond to safety measures).

The VPC-14 has strong reliability and has since been adapted in multiple languages, enabling better comparisons of climate across contexts. Having standard scales means organisations can audit their violence prevention climate over time and see if interventions make a difference (Hallett et al., 2018).

Another emerging insight is the benefit of considering multiple perspectives. Traditionally, climate was assessed only from the staff viewpoint. However, in environments like healthcare or education, clients’ or patients’ perspectives also play a role in safety. Hallett and Dickens (2021) surveyed both staff and patients in UK mental health wards. They found that each group had somewhat different perceptions: staff tended to rate staff-led preventive actions higher than patients did, while patients rated patient behaviours more positively than staff did (Hallett & Dickens, 2021). In other words, each group gave itself a bit more credit. Despite this gap, within each group there was consensus about the climate, affirming that the construct is meaningful for both populations. This suggests that improving communication between staff and service users about safety efforts could further enhance the overall climate.  For example, ensuring patients appreciate the measures staff are taking, and staff recognise the ways patients contribute to a calm environment (Hallett & Dickens, 2021).

Researchers have also explored violence prevention climate in broader contexts beyond hospitals. The concept applies in offices, retail, transport, and other sectors where aggression might occur. Meta-analytic evidence shows that in general, a workplace climate that does not tolerate incivility or bullying correlates with lower rates of mistreatment (Yang et al., 2014). Additionally, Brunero et al. (2021) found that the violence prevention climate concept translated to a large general hospital setting with similar reliability, although some patient-engagement elements of the survey were less applicable in that context. This suggests the climate framework is broad but may require slight tailoring outside high-risk environments. A related line of inquiry examines how violence prevention climate intersects with overall safety culture and civility norms. These aspects likely reinforce each other; for instance, a high civility climate (emphasising respect in all interactions) can amplify the effect of formal violence prevention policies. In practice, organisations are encouraged to view violence prevention as part of a broader respect and safety culture, rather than an isolated initiative.

Finally, attention has turned to interventions and how to change a workplace’s climate for the better. Case studies and trials indicate that introducing comprehensive violence reduction programmes can indeed lower incident rates. For example, implementing the Safewards model (a set of interventions in psychiatric wards aimed at reducing conflict) was shown to reduce conflict incidents by roughly 23% in one trial (Bowers et al., 2015, as cited in Hallett & Dickens, 2021). However, changing the underlying climate can lag behind these immediate results. It appears that while practical measures can quickly curb violence, employees’ perceptions (trust in management, sense of safety) might take longer to fully adjust. This underscores that culture change is a gradual process. To solidify improvements, leadership needs to sustain their commitment by continuing to reinforce anti-violence values, celebrate progress, and institutionalise new practices. Over time, as incidents remain low and management support remains high, the workforce will come to believe “yes, things have changed”, and climate survey scores will reflect that conviction. The encouraging message from recent research is that climate is malleable; with persistent effort, even workplaces that once accepted violence as “part of the job” can transform into ones where everyone expects and enjoys a safe, respectful atmosphere.

Conclusion and Practical Takeaways

Research over the last 15 years makes it clear that workplace violence is a preventable problem, and a strong violence prevention climate is the key to prevention. Rather than treating violence as random or inevitable, organisations should recognise that their culture and practices significantly influence the likelihood of aggression. A climate of zero tolerance for violence which is backed by engaged leadership, robust policies, and empowered employees results in fewer incidents and healthier, happier staff. Conversely, a poorly managed climate invites more aggression and leads to negative outcomes like injuries, stress, and turnover.

For organisations seeking to improve, there are concrete steps available:

1. Demonstrate top-level commitment:
   Leaders must actively show that safety is a priority. This could mean executives talking about safety in communications, managers responding swiftly to incidents, and allocating resources (security staff, training time) for violence prevention. When employees see that management genuinely cares, it builds trust and a positive climate.
2. Implement and enforce clear policies:
   Establish a comprehensive workplace violence prevention policy that covers all forms of aggression (from bullying to physical assault) and outlines reporting procedures and consequences. Ensure these rules are consistently enforced. No matter who the perpetrator is (customer, employee, manager), incidents must be addressed. Consistent accountability reinforces that the policy is not just “lip service”.
3. Encourage reporting and support staff:
   Create a culture where employees can report threats or incidents without fear of reprisal or being ignored. Set up easy reporting channels and assure staff that every report will be taken seriously. After an incident, support the affected employee—provide medical or counselling help if needed, and involve them in the follow-up process. This shows that the organisation stands behind its people.
4. Provide training and resources:
   Regularly train employees (and managers) in how to prevent and handle aggression. This includes de-escalation techniques, recognising warning signs, and knowing emergency protocols. Training builds confidence and competence, so workers are not caught off guard. It also signals that the organisation invests in their safety. Likewise, ensure physical workspaces have appropriate safety features (alarm systems, secure layouts, etc.), and that staffing levels are sufficient to avoid vulnerable situations (like someone working alone in a high-risk area).
5. Reduce conflicting pressures:
   Examine whether any workplace practices inadvertently discourage safety. If targets or schedules are so demanding that employees feel they cannot take time to report or that they must endure abuse from clients, those pressures need adjustment. Make it clear through policy and manager guidance that safety overrides other demands. For example, customer-facing employees should know they have the right to disengage from an abusive interaction without penalty.
6. Foster a respectful culture:
   Promote civility and mutual respect as core values. Often, violence prevention starts with everyday interactions. Workplaces where people treat each other with courtesy are less likely to see conflicts escalate. Intervene promptly in cases of bullying or harassment. Encourage team-building and open communication so that a baseline of respect is established. A culture of respect amplifies formal safety measures, creating an environment where aggression simply doesn’t fit in.
7. Engage employees in solutions:
   Involve staff in violence prevention initiatives. Frontline employees often know where the risks are and can offer practical ideas (like needing a second person on a late shift or installing a barrier in reception). By including them in safety committees or feedback sessions, you not only tap into their knowledge but also increase their buy-in. When employees feel they have a voice in safety, they become active partners in maintaining a positive climate.
8. Monitor and evaluate:
   Use surveys or other assessment tools to keep track of your violence prevention climate. Ask employees periodically about their perceptions of safety and management’s commitment. Review incident reports for patterns. This data helps identify areas of improvement and whether changes are working. It also reinforces to employees that management is paying attention to the issue.

Creating a safe workplace is an ongoing effort. However, the research is encouraging. Even small improvements in climate can yield measurable reductions in violence and stress. Over time, a virtuous cycle can take hold. Fewer incidents boost morale and trust, which further strengthens the climate, leading to even fewer incidents. By following the evidence-based practices outlined above, organisations can make substantial progress towards eliminating workplace violence. In doing so, they not only protect their employees from harm, but also cultivate a work environment where people can perform their jobs with confidence, dignity, and peace of mind.

References

Brunero, S., Lamont, S., Dunn, S., Varndell, W., & Dickens, G. L. (2021). Examining the utility of the Violence Prevention Climate scale in a metropolitan Australian general hospital. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 30(15–16), 2399–2408. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15780

Chang, C.-H., Eatough, E. M., Spector, P. E., & Kessler, S. R. (2012). Violence-prevention climate, exposure to violence and aggression, and prevention behavior: A mediation model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(5), 657–677. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.776

Gimeno, D., Barrientos-Gutiérrez, T., Burau, K. D., & Felknor, S. A. (2012). Safety climate and verbal abuse among public hospital-based workers in Costa Rica. Work, 42(1), 67–75. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2012-1324

Hallett, N., & Dickens, G. L. (2021). The violence prevention climate of mental health wards: A cross-sectional study of staff and patient views. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 56(1), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-020-01860-6

Hallett, N., Huber, J., Sixsmith, J., & Dickens, G. L. (2018). Measuring the violence prevention climate: Development and evaluation of the VPC-14. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 85, 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.09.002

Kessler, S. R., Spector, P. E., Chang, C.-H., & Parr, A. D. (2008). Organisational violence and aggression: Development of the three-factor Violence Climate Survey. Work & Stress, 22(2), 108–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370802187926

Lipscomb, J. A., London, M., Chen, Y. M., Flannery, K., Watt, M., Geiger-Brown, J., Johnson, J. V., & McPhaul, K. (2012). Safety climate and workplace violence prevention in state-run residential addiction treatment centres. Work, 42(1), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2012-1330

Spector, P. E., Coulter, M. L., Stockwell, H. G., & Matz, M. W. (2007). Perceived violence climate: A new construct and its relationship to workplace physical violence and verbal aggression, and their potential consequences. Work & Stress, 21(2), 117–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370701410007

Spector, P. E., Yang, L.-Q., & Zhou, Z. E. (2015). A longitudinal investigation of the role of violence prevention climate in exposure to workplace physical violence and verbal abuse. Work & Stress, 29(4), 325–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2015.1076537

Viotti, S., Guidetti, G., & Converso, D. (2019). Nurses between the hammer and the anvil: Analyzing the role of the workplace prevention climate in reducing internal and external violence. Violence and Victims, 34(2), 363–375. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-17-00035

Yang, L.-Q., Caughlin, D. E., Gazica, M. W., Truxillo, D. M., & Spector, P. E. (2014). Workplace mistreatment climate and outcomes: A meta-analytic review. Work & Stress, 28(3), 262–280.

Yeşildağ, B., Baştürk, S., & Kılıç, M. (2024). Assessing workplace well-being in healthcare: The violence-prevention climate and its relationship with workplace happiness. International Nursing Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/inr.13026